Threaded Mode | Linear Mode

coldfuse · 10-12-2012, 08:19 AM

And the amount of money in my social security account is currently zero dollars. Just like everyone else's. Anything you pay in social security goes out the door to a current recipient.

It is a Ponzi scheme only Bernie Madoff could appreciate.

smsmith500 · 10-12-2012, 08:19 AM

Last I looked the majority of Democrats in Congress owned stocks. John Kerry has about 13 pages of stock investments including Haliburton. If its such a "gamble" why are they doing it? Thing is when you give the money back its under the control of the people not the congress. I for one would be happy to invest what has been taken from me in SSI into my retirement account.

Liberal Madness · 10-12-2012, 08:19 AM

Because its the same thing that EVERY federal employee is able to do.

Its called a "THRIFT SAVINGS ACCOUNT" where you are able to take 5% of your SS and put it into dividends or a money market account.

And even with the recession my money would have still made 1.1% interest instead of the 0% interest my money makes no matter the year!

flower · 10-12-2012, 08:19 AM

If the Republicans don't abolish social security it would be in the long-term an investment for retirement better than receiving paltry social security benefits to live on. The market always rebounds.

Mark · 10-12-2012, 08:19 AM

They want the commissions. It's pure greed.

Darwin · 10-12-2012, 08:19 AM

So their corporate bosses can get their hands on our money and steal it.

Max Hoopla · 10-12-2012, 08:19 AM

Over the long haul the market has been up. That doesn't mean that it won't crash again tomorrow. Social Security comes with a guarantee. That is the intangible value that gets overlooked.

Horton · 10-12-2012, 08:19 AM

I would rather have my social security to into a 401K than have it stolen by the federal government.

water_skipper · 10-12-2012, 08:19 AM

volatility - This is good because the more an investment goes up and down, the more opportunitites there are to buy low and sell high. The only people against volatility are people without the patience to wait for good timing.
Republicans - Because SS is broke
gamble - The term gamble doesn't really apply to the stock market. With legimimate gambling such as blackjack there are fixed, known odds. With stocks there is uncertainty (unless an investor takes the time to get educated).

Los Mojados · 10-12-2012, 08:19 AM

Even given its volatility the returns are greater. Its not just about the stock market and having a choice of investment options . Its about when and how you can receive benefits. Currently you can start receiving a social security benefit at age 62 but it will be 25% less than at age 66. Congress can change these ages at anytime and has done so before reducing your potential benefit.

Lets say you were born in 1950 and worked to age 60. Your contribution rate is 7.65% of gross federal income and your employer pays a like percentage. That's 15.3% of your pay that goes to social security. Assuming an average salary over 40 years of $50,000 per year you will have contributed $306,000. Your monthly benefit starting in 2012 (age 62) would be $1037 per month. You would need to live until age 84 to collect all of your contributions. If you are male and born in 1950 you probably don't have that long.

If you had invested that same amount in a modest bond fund over the same period you would have at least twice the benefit and could start contributions when you wanted.

You tell me who is going to live better?